How many are in Family Finder compared to Relative Finder of 23andMe?

[JohnLloydScharf]

About The Family Tree DNA Database

Our database is the largest in the field of Genetic Genealogy. As of February 11, 2012, the Family Tree DNA database has 359,929 records. We also have:

6,806 SURNAME PROJECTS 109,452 unique surnames 222,839 Y-DNA records in the database 139,496 25-marker records in the database 119,328 37-marker records in the database 54,491 67-marker records in the database 137,090 mtDNA records in the database 16,903 FGS records in the database.

I wonder why we are not seeing the numbers for the size of the database for the 111-marker records or the Family Finder records.

[Peacock100]

I wonder why we are not seeing the numbers for the size of the database for the 111-marker records or the Family Finder records.

149 matches here and 900 at 23 and Me so 6 to one as to the 2 databases for now. Not sure what this has to do with Y-DNA 111 markers and how many have done that.

[JohnLloydScharf]

149 matches here and 900 at 23 and Me so 6 to one as to the 2 databases for now. Not sure what this has to do with Y-DNA 111 markers and how many have done that.

This has nothing to do with "matches." It has to do with the total number of individuals in the FF data base. There is no way to assess the magnitude of that using the number of matches, even for a single person.

FOR EXAMPLE:
While I have 872 "matches" on Relative Finder on 23andMe, only 11 are above 30cM. I have 165 "matches" on Family Finder. Of those only one is above 30cM, but if you go by longest single block, but it is 127 if you refer to shared cM.

Further, of those 11 on 23andMe, ten seem no longer to have a subscription to the service.

Personally, I do not consider a "block" or "segment" to be significant unless it is over 86cM. I suspect a half brother or the first cousin of parent's twin would be that high.

HOWEVER, I do not see the rationale for hiding the size of a data base as long as it is growing. For all the bells and whistles of 23andMe, the medical and genealogical claims they make are based on what makes sales. Help me understand how I can be 2.8% related to Neanderthals and 0.61% to the one they list as closest to me and claim is a 3rd to 5th cousin?

In reality, my DNA is 70% for anyone using the same "SNPs." We all share 99% of the same DNA if you do not get selective by using 1/3000th of the whole genome. Using their "SNPs," if you are 76% or less in common, it is unlikely you are related regardless of any segment length of less than 86cM. If it is less than 80% it is questionable, from what I have seen.

So far, there is no real (peer-reviewed) research to justify any of the methodology or justify any level of relationship that I have found.

What is questionable is hiding the numbers in the data base on some tests and not on others. Tell the whole story. Be honest.

[AngeliaR]

Agenda?

@JLS

I look to these forums to provide positive discourse and personal research guidance. However, you seem to have a private agenda that is not always related to the topics being discussed.

Would it be possible to remove your campaigning to a separate thread?
Perhaps the one on "Which Features Would Be Nice To Have".

I want to note that I am not challenging your superior wisdom or knowledge in any way shape or form. I openly admit that I do not have training in any field remotely scientific in nature. However, I would like to exchange ideas and feel free to post and read queries without having to dig past private agenda items that don't relate.

Please, PLEASE.

[JohnLloydScharf]

@JLS

I look to these forums to provide positive discourse and personal research guidance. However, you seem to have a private agenda that is not always related to the topics being discussed.

Would it be possible to remove your campaigning to a separate thread?
Perhaps the one on "Which Features Would Be Nice To Have".

I want to note that I am not challenging your superior wisdom or knowledge in any way shape or form. I openly admit that I do not have training in any field remotely scientific in nature. However, I would like to exchange ideas and feel free to post and read queries without having to dig past private agenda items that don't relate.

Please, PLEASE.

I have no private agenda and your recommendation is irrelevant to the topic. If you do not want to read my posts, don't. Personal attacks are not appropriate.

[AngeliaR]

Agreed

@jls

I agree completely that this is not an appropriate place for personal attack.
Please. PLEASE. Just stop.

The stated topic, which you started, was for the comparison of RF and FF. It was stated in a vague enough manner that it was unclear the reference was to overall size of the respective databases rather than a comparison of individual matches. And, the connection to Y111... ???

Perhaps you could start a new thread for "the value of peer reviewed data" or "significance of block size" or "appropriate use of descriptive %" in genetic genealogy. Clearly stating your topic would help people know whether or not they want to read the thread and/or respond and debate.

I am suggesting there are better ways to inspire forum participation and guide the curious. My hope is for us to "all get along" but to do so in a manner that is mutually respectful.

'nuf said.

[1_mke]

@JohnLloydScharf, I agree that personal attacks are innapropriate. I would however disagree with you that you were subjected to a personal attack. A polite request was made, nothing more.

Also, actions speak louder than words. Its clear to me and I'm sure others that you have an agenda. I'm not judging the validity of your agenda as I'm not qualified but its disengenuous at best to claim that you don't have one.

To be clear, everyone has an agenda whether they acknowledge it or not. Yours is just a bit more obviously manifested than most.

[darroll]

Our whole family matches FTDNA.

Business must be bad at the other place.

[JohnLloydScharf]

@jls

I agree completely that this is not an appropriate place for personal attack.
Please. PLEASE. Just stop.

The stated topic, which you started, was for the comparison of RF and FF. It was stated in a vague enough manner that it was unclear the reference was to overall size of the respective databases rather than a comparison of individual matches. And, the connection to Y111... ???

Perhaps you could start a new thread for "the value of peer reviewed data" or "significance of block size" or "appropriate use of descriptive %" in genetic genealogy. Clearly stating your topic would help people know whether or not they want to read the thread and/or respond and debate.

I am suggesting there are better ways to inspire forum participation and guide the curious. My hope is for us to "all get along" but to do so in a manner that is mutually respectful.

'nuf said.

You are continuing to engage in a personal attack.

[JohnLloydScharf]

@JohnLloydScharf, I agree that personal attacks are innapropriate. I would however disagree with you that you were subjected to a personal attack. A polite request was made, nothing more.

Also, actions speak louder than words. Its clear to me and I'm sure others that you have an agenda. I'm not judging the validity of your agenda as I'm not qualified but its disengenuous at best to claim that you don't have one.

To be clear, everyone has an agenda whether they acknowledge it or not. Yours is just a bit more obviously manifested than most.

I agree we all have agendas of one sort or another. I have made no bones about the lack of validation of the claims made by FTDNA.

In regard to the one who attacked me, it is not a polite request. It was intended to shut me up rather than to just ignore me.

The statement was that I have a private agenda. It is nothing of the sort.

NOW, unless someone has some facts to add rather than making the topic about me, I am not interested in continuing. I started this topic as a question and that question is not being answered or even responded to.

[mkdexter]

John I see you haven't changed from the time you were told to stop doing what you are now doing again.


As to the original question, FTDNA chooses not to provide the number of Family Finder tests in the database because they do not want to provide it..

That's your answer.

Matt.

[Peacock100]

This has nothing to do with "matches." It has to do with the total number of individuals in the FF data base. There is no way to assess the magnitude of that using the number of matches, even for a single person.

FOR EXAMPLE:
While I have 872 "matches" on Relative Finder on 23andMe, only 11 are above 30cM. I have 165 "matches" on Family Finder. Of those only one is above 30cM, but if you go by longest single block, but it is 127 if you refer to shared cM.

Further, of those 11 on 23andMe, ten seem no longer to have a subscription to the service.

Personally, I do not consider a "block" or "segment" to be significant unless it is over 86cM. I suspect a half brother or the first cousin of parent's twin would be that high.

HOWEVER, I do not see the rationale for hiding the size of a data base as long as it is growing. For all the bells and whistles of 23andMe, the medical and genealogical claims they make are based on what makes sales. Help me understand how I can be 2.8% related to Neanderthals and 0.61% to the one they list as closest to me and claim is a 3rd to 5th cousin?

In reality, my DNA is 70% for anyone using the same "SNPs." We all share 99% of the same DNA if you do not get selective by using 1/3000th of the whole genome. Using their "SNPs," if you are 76% or less in common, it is unlikely you are related regardless of any segment length of less than 86cM. If it is less than 80% it is questionable, from what I have seen.

So far, there is no real (peer-reviewed) research to justify any of the methodology or justify any level of relationship that I have found.

What is questionable is hiding the numbers in the data base on some tests and not on others. Tell the whole story. Be honest.

Guess I misunderstood your question. Think you need to contact FTDNA. Also agree with those down thread, about your tone. No need for that.

[Jim Barrett]

How many are in Family Finder compared to Relative Finder of 23andMe?

I guess I missed something. I thought the heading for this topic was "How many are in Family Finder compared to Relative Finder of 23andMe?"

To me this is like asking, "Does 23andMe have more lemons than FTDNA has apples?" My GUESS is that FTDNA has many more FF members interested in genealogy than 23andMe has RF members interested in genealogy. And that is what I think is important.

[Peacock100]

I guess I missed something. I thought the heading for this topic was "How many are in Family Finder compared to Relative Finder of 23andMe?"

To me this is like asking, "Does 23andMe have more lemons than FTDNA has apples?" My GUESS is that FTDNA has many more FF members interested in genealogy than 23andMe has RF members interested in genealogy. And that is what I think is important.

Good analogy, Jim. There have been threads at 23 and Me, asking how many matches at 23 and Me vs FTDNA and the percentage varies. I thought that was what this thread was about. But even so, the draw to the 2 companies is different. Many at 23 and Me are ONLY there for health related results and some other projects they have recruited people to. So very much, apple and lemons as you call it. Difficult to guess the relative size of the data bases based on what people have inputted as to percentages. Until and unless FTDNA announces how many FF tests they have, guess we will not know. And yes, what I am interested in anyway is how many I can communicate with here or there. Despite the larger data base at 23 and Me, have more luck here. As to JLS´s thoughts about relationship predictions, have found a number of couisns here and some over there, who do not meet his strict criteria. We match geneticcaly and via paper trails. Some people match genetically where have not found a paper trail and I think that that is because the alogorithm is too strict, both here and there, because some of my predicted and confirmed matches are more distant than either alogorithm is predicting. That problem may be worse here but due to the non responsiveness of many over there and bad tools over there, hard to compare results.

Linda

[Javelin]

Anecdotally the database for 23andme is maybe about 8 times the Family Finder database, but another factor here is the cap on Relative Finder which means that no matter how much 23andme expands, many people will be getting no new matches.

RF has a limit to something like 1,500 people in Relative Finder (and believe it or not that includes those who have opted out of RF). Family Finder has no limit.

People with old US colonial ancestry now have about 1,000 Relative Finder matches opted-in (probably their quota is full, or almost so), and perhaps 300 Family Finder. With Ashkenazi people it is probably more like 1,200 Relative Finder (their quota is definitely full) and 500-600 Family Finder. At the current pace of 23andme uploads and new Family Finder kits, it should not be long before people completely, mostly, or even perhaps a smaller fraction from one of these two backgrounds will have more Family Finder matches than Relative Finder matches simply because of Relative Finder's ceiling on number of matches.